Q:Why can I not add "Shri", "Chhatrapati", or "Maharaj" to Shivaji's name?
A: As perWP:Honorifics andWP:Commonname, inWikipedia, we refer to people by their commonly used name in thecited academic sources. We do not include titles orHonorifics unless they are commonly used in the cited sources (Shivaji does not fall in this category). Please noteCharles III, where he is referred to as "Charles" throughout, not "King Charles" nor "His Royal Highness" or whatnot. We clearly note Shivaji's titles in the article, we just don't repeat them each time his name is written. Please refer tothis talk discussion for more details.
This article iswritten inIndian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour,travelled,centre,analysed,defence) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
Shivaji was agood articles nominee, but did not meet thegood article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofIndia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofHinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article wascopy edited byDhtwiki, a member of theGuild of Copy Editors, on 15–21 October 2023.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates tothe region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic.
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
This page isprotected. You must be logged-in to anextended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except inlimited circumstances)
@Capitals00: Care to explain how thisedit was coatracking? The source cited is pretty much clear in its saying while relating the situation withRajputs:
Following significant military deployment led by the Mughal commander, Mirza Raja Jai Singh, Shivaji was defeated, and induced to come to the imperial court. But unlike an earlier generation of similarly vanquished Rajput kings, Shivaji could not be turned into a Mughal mansabdār
It is COATRACK, the content is barely relevant to Shivaji, besides you have completely misrepresented what the author meant. "vanquished " =/= submissive. If you are adding this WP:UNDUE content part because the article mentions "Rajput" then you have no valid argument to begin with. There is not a single mention of "Rajput" anywhere on the lead.Abhishek0831996 (talk)16:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it to be a Coatrack. This is very much relevant. It was Mughal's strategy of defeating a ruler and taking him to their service instead of punishing or killing him, which they have been carrying out successfully especially with Rajputs for a long time. It served very well to them and they became so much powerful that many Rajputs were eager to get their daughters marry with the Mughals in hope of protection from invasions from independent kings like Shivaji.
The UNDUE argument feels irrelevant too, as the section mostly deals with Shivaji's interactions with Jai Singh, a Rajput vessel working under the Mughals.Akshaypatill (talk)17:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ReadWP:COATRACK. Where is the lead comparing him with Rajput kings? It is your own view that it does by mentioning Jai Singh, however, nothing has been explicitly mentioned there. Since this article is underWP:1RR, you should make a self-revert and gain consensus.Capitals00 (talk)00:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the necessary context here. We already have said that Jai Singh was a Rajput. When Shivaji accepted vassalage, it was not a usual Mughal vassalage, he enjoyed a lot many exemptions from the duties of a Mughal mansabdar, unlike other independent kings who had been defeated, most of which happened to be Rajputs
and that's what the scholar author is implying. This difference is significant and explains the nature of Shivaji's brief vassalage. So, I don't see a reason to remove it.Akshaypatill (talk)04:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that there's any mention of 'Rajput' in the lead, but the whole article body. You mean the debate over Shivaji's reluctance to accept Mughal Mansabdari and orders is not relevant to him? At this point, you should self revert instead of burnout stonewalling. To the least you need to restore the non-Rajput part. Lastly vanquished = defeated = submitted = subdue are all one in the same wordings. Your contention is unnecessary, so self-revert is a long shot thought.Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk)16:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What source says:
Following significant military deployment led by the Mughal commander, Mirza Raja Jai Singh, Shivaji was defeated, and induced to come to the imperial court. But unlike an earlier generation of similarly vanquished Rajput kings, Shivaji could not be turned into a Mughal mansabdār
What you wrote:
However, Chatterjee argues that Shivaji could not be tamed to enter the Mughal mansabdari system, in contrast of the submissiveRajput rulers who had accepted Mughal service.
It is clear that you have misinterpreted the source here. Vanquished means defeated, "submissive" is a completely incorrect word to describe it and is borderline WP:OR. Your statement that " vanquished = defeated = submitted = subdue are all one in the same wordings" is nonsensical , submissive is an adjective that describes a trait. Vanquished is an adjective that describes someone who has been defeated. In fact what you wrote is opposite of what the source says, vanquished means there was a conflict, submissive means they had a thing for yielding. The fact that you don't understand this difference is highly problematic.
Lastly the part about Shivaji not being induced into the service and his reluctance to attend the court is already covered in the subsequent paragraphs. That part you added was redundant.Abhishek0831996 (talk)02:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. @Maniacal ! Paradoxical's interpretation is pretty apt. One may argue about the wording, but the interpretation is correct, especially when you don't see the text in seclusion. We can fix the wording, but I don't see the need for a blanket removal. You can make a purposal addressing the wording according to you and keep it here for consideration.Akshaypatill (talk)12:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
In introductory paragraph, editor should highlight the legacy of the King, but here editor of this page is deliberately highlighting the head time events of Shivaji Maharaj. Also, editor highlighted Mughal General Jaisingh as a Rajput General, but technically he was not there as a Rajput General. He was debuted as a Mughal Governor. Contemporary Rulers from different dynasties highlighted his bravery, but here author gave only reference of the Shivaji Maharaj's word which he used as a diplomacy during the his hard time.Dnyaneshwar1996 (talk)13:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
In introductory paragraph, editor should highlight the legacy of the King, but here editor of this page is deliberately highlighting the head time events of Shivaji Maharaj. Also, editor highlighted Mughal General Jaisingh as a Rajput General, but technically he was not there as a Rajput General. He was debuted as a Mughal Governor. Contemporary Rulers from different dynasties highlighted his bravery, but here author gave only reference of the Shivaji Maharaj's word which he used as a diplomacy during the his hard time.Dnyaneshwar1996 (talk)13:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnyaneshwar1996: What you have done is to tell us WHY you want the changes. You need to tell us WHAT changes you want. This needs to be explicit - i.e. write out here (a) the text you want removed, and (b) what text you want to replace it with. Remember to include the citations you want added.-- Toddy1(talk)13:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should highlight the achievements in introductory paragraph, instead of highlighting irrelevant information from the hard time. His achievements were greater than what you have highlighted in the introductory paragraph. So I suggest to remove following paragraph & include paragraph B. I'm not suggesting any wrong information. I just want to highlight his achievements.
A) Shivaji offered passage and his service to the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb to invade the declining Sultanate of Bijapur. After Aurangzeb's departure for the north due to a war of succession, Shivaji conquered territories ceded by Bijapur in the name of the Mughals. Following his defeat at the hands of Jai Singh I in the Battle of Purandar, Shivaji entered into vassalage with the Mughal empire, assuming the role of a Mughal chief, during this time Shivaji also wrote a series of letters apologising to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb for his actions and requested additional honors for his services. He was later conferred with the title of Raja by the emperor. He undertook military expeditions on behalf of the Mughal Empire for a brief duration.
In 1674, Shivaji was crowned as the king despite opposition from local Brahmins. Shivaji employed people of all castes and religions, including Muslims and Europeans, in his administration and armed forces. Over the course of his life, Shivaji engaged in both alliances and hostilities with the Mughal Empire, the Sultanate of Golconda, the Sultanate of Bijapur and the European colonial powers. Shivaji's military forces expanded the Maratha sphere of influence, capturing and building forts, and forming a Maratha navy.
Shivaji's legacy was revived by Jyotirao Phule about two centuries after his death. Later on, he came to be glorified by Indian nationalists such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and appropriated by Hindutva activists.
B) Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj (c. February 19, 1630 – April 3, 1680) was a revered Indian warrior-king and the founder of the Maratha Empire, celebrated for his strategic brilliance and relentless pursuit of Swarajya (self-rule). In the 1650s, he boldly captured key forts like Torna and Purandar and annexed territories from the Adilshahi Sultanate, establishing a strong Maratha foothold in western India. In 1659, his daring killing of Adilshahi general Afzal Khan at Pratapgad, a tactical triumph, earned him widespread acclaim as the "mountain lion," with tales of his valor spreading across the Deccan. In 1663, he struck a bold blow against the Mughal Empire by raiding Aurangzeb’s uncle Shaista Khan in Pune, forcing his retreat. Facing Mughal pressure, Shivaji strategically signed the Treaty of Purandar in 1665 with Jai Singh I, preserving his core forces for future campaigns. His legendary escape from Mughal captivity in Agra in 1666, a celebrated story of cunning, further amplified his fame. Following this, Shivaji rebuilt his administration, strengthened his forces, and launched aggressive offensives against Mughal territories, reclaiming lost ground. Crowned Chhatrapati in 1674, he unified communities of diverse religions in a progressive administration and built a formidable navy. In the late 1670s, he expanded Maratha influence southward, capturing regions like parts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Revived by 19th-century reformers like Jyotirao Phule and glorified by nationalists like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Shivaji’s legacy endures as a symbol of valor, autonomy, and cultural pride. (talk)14:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coronation paragraph is totally biased.There is no contemporary source available which says that Brahmins Denied Shivaji Maharaj Coronation Even Jadunath Sarkar who wrote this in his book Shivaji his Life and Times has no proper Source.please remove the paragraph.Marathadharm (talk)18:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criminally Incompetent and WRONG information at the beginning
About the beginning of the page, describing Maharaj as someone who apologized and succumbed to Aurangzeb, please fact check and make changes. This is abomination of the highest order.
He never submitted in spirit to Aurangzeb — even his temporary compromises were strategic pauses, not surrender.His escape from Agra wasn’t an accident of luck — it was a masterclass in intelligence, courage, and resolve.And his crowning as Chhatrapati was one of the most revolutionary acts of Indian history — declaring self-rule at a time when every ruler claimed legitimacy from some emperor or sultan.Phoenix-022 (talk)17:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
